Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Precious and Base Metal Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geoffb_si who wrote (2364)	3/12/2002 6:43:16 PM
From: russwinter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39344

<group(s) that are opposing development> Opposition to a change is normal, and the transition from an agrarian society to a mining district is not insignificant. However these properties have the prospect of creating wealth for more than just a handful. If I was a local, I might use initial opposition as leverage to gain fair distribution, and further I'd be vocal about it. I think that's happened, as in fact the town will be modernized with new facilities, water and sewer, higher wages and the multiplier effect. The upside for the people and govt far outweighs the downside of mining. Secondly, I would try to mitigate the industrial/environmental impact of mining, and that's exactly what is transpiring with the EIS and independent consultant. <Peruvian gov't, in the past, has not wanted to get involved> In a nutshell, Kuscinsky/the new government and a big share of the stakes. <no clear resolution in sight> I've been involved in development and I can tell you there never is "clear resolution", but that doesn't stop it from happening. <Base Metals and gold took a dive 2 years ago.> And nicely setting up the next cycle, where a scramble will ensue for great deposits. This one will rank very high. <Limited cash ($2M).> Notice how many outfits are positioning themselves as we speak. It will happen here as well. They will find a deeper pocketed partner to support the effort. Of course will have to dilute the project on paper but not for the benefit, as I expect the future production and district exploration finds flowing from a well funded partner to work as leverage for MAN not against them. <major wants the issues with the town resolved.> Of course, that's why one should get involved and assist the process (which is now fairly advanced IMO). I don't expect a major to just write out a check for the whole thing (then again, why not?), but they can surely earn in.

To: geoffb_si who wrote (2364)	3/12/2002 11:51:01 PM
From: marynell	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 39344

"(6) They will need a major to develop this, but a major wants the issues with the town resolved before they get involved. Catch-22." Bob Bishop agrees with you. One thing that makes me angry about the money that I lost on MAN two years ago: The company and analysts presented the town as though it was a tiny village, a third-word collection of a few mud shanties with a few pigs and chickens in the streets. I did not do detailed due diligence, and I believed this line. Later, we find out that this is a real TOWN, not a few shacks. I was, and still am, angry over this.